Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Bunk]

Would we all agree that somebody needs to step up and move things along?

[ken0042]

^^ I think that isn't necessarily a fair statement, Bunk. As there are more than two opinions on this. Generally speaking:

Some think the City's offer is more than fair, and the city should not budge.
Some think the Flames' offer is fair, and the Flames should not budge.
Some think there is room in the middle, and negotiation should continue.
Some think the Saddledome is fine; or that the cost of the new arena would not be worth the benefit.

I'm in that latter group, as I know in a new arena I will be priced out of being able to afford tickets. So the longer the Flames play at the Dome, the longer I can afford to attend live hockey played at the highest level.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by ken0042

^^ I think that isn't necessarily a fair statement, Bunk. As there are more than two opinions on this. Generally speaking:

Some think the City's offer is more than fair, and the city should not budge.
Some think the Flames' offer is fair, and the Flames should not budge.
Some think there is room in the middle, and negotiation should continue.
Some think the Saddledome is fine; or that the cost of the new arena would not be worth the benefit.

I'm in that latter group, as I know in a new arena I will be priced out of being able to afford tickets. So the longer the Flames play at the Dome, the longer I can afford to attend live hockey played at the highest level.

Fair enough, however, even to get to that type of conclusion there needs to be a process of discussion. Right now things are in a very unhealthy state of limbo, in my view.

[RM14]

Probably won't hear anything until the City Reps get back from South Korea.

[Boreal]

I think the next big item or non-item is when Bill Smith's donor list gets announced and we truly see if CSEC is on it and if, again, they are caught in a lie/half-truth/misinformation/however Ken King spins it.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by nobles_point

I think the next big item or non-item is when Bill Smith's donor list gets announced and we truly see if CSEC is on it and if, again, they are caught in a lie/half-truth/misinformation/however Ken King spins it.

What difference does it make?

Election is over. Nenshi is the mayor, council is unchanged anymore than it was going to be anyway. Move on.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by ken0042

^^ I think that isn't necessarily a fair statement, Bunk. As there are more than two opinions on this. Generally speaking:

Some think the City's offer is more than fair, and the city should not budge.
Some think the Flames' offer is fair, and the Flames should not budge.
Some think there is room in the middle, and negotiation should continue.
Some think the Saddledome is fine; or that the cost of the new arena would not be worth the benefit...

There is one more:
Some think we don't need an NHL team in Calgary and good riddance if they leave.

This latter group, potentially, is large enough to disinterest politicians from making a genuine effort to keep Flames in Calgary. Let's face it, the previous Council was overwhelmingly pro-business and pro-development. This new Council is, arguably, even more pro-business. Nobody, in good conscience, can accuse it of intentionally trying to drive Calgary Flames out.

However;
a) not all of the Council members care about NHL hockey that much to begin with; those who don't lack the emotional attachment and support to the notion of the team being a community asset;
b) most of them do want to be re-elected, so they need to gauge electorate's interest in paying something (anything) to keep the team here.

In response to Bunk's comment, the decision to step up and return to the negotiation table cannot be made until Council agrees on what they really want out of it, first. What Nenshi says publicly about it has very little significance. He is not the decision maker on the outcome of this negotiation, unless there is a tie vote in Council. Saddledome is a large aging asset, which would lose its anchor tenant if the team leaves. Unless they just blow it up and lose the only large event facility we have, its maintenance and upkeep expense could become entirely taxpayers' responsibility. That should be a very significant factor to those who are not seeing the community value of the team otherwise.

Negotiators use the term BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). The ownership group's BATNA is $700M in cash and no more hassles. City's BATNA is quite murky.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

How many of us, when doing our taxes this coming year, will refuse to take a deduction we're legally allowed to take? How many of us will willfully pay more money than we have to?

This is a non-analogous argument. Taking a deduction or credit on one's taxes is NOT the equivalent of investing funds (or not) in a business operation.

This is about trying to coerce the City managers, its elected officials and its taxpayers into paying for an arena on sweetheart terms so Murray Edwards and his gang of owners can pocket millions upon countless millions - either by way of earnings of the Flames, or by sale of the team.

It doesn't matter which way you cut it: if the owners want to make money, they need to invest. They don't want to invest (at least not the amount it will take). The outcome is foregone unless Edwards comes back, eats some humble pie and reopens negotiations on a somewhat more thoughtful basis. I'm betting he will not do this.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by transplant99

What difference does it make?

Election is over. Nenshi is the mayor, council is unchanged anymore than it was going to be anyway. Move on.

I don't care. However, it only worsens the Flames public persona on the issue to everyone on City Council along with displaying they have obvious issues about negotiating in good faith with the City.

There needs to be a reset in the negotiations.

Yes, the election is over.

A new beginning could start with someone other than silver-tongued Ken King and his distracting dog and pony show.

[Table 5]

Personally, I don't think anything happens until there is some big shift or news item that gives everyone impetus to talk again...especially on the Flames side. It needs to be something like an Olympic bid being official, or new ownership. But it has to be a bit of a re-set of some sort to bring hope back to the conversation.

Ken King also needs to not be part of the next round of negotiations. I understand that he's only a mouthpiece, but he does a pretty terrible job of being one, and doesn't seem to really understand the development game whatsoever.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Personally, I don't think anything happens until there is some big shift or news item that gives everyone impetus to talk again...especially on the Flames side. It needs to be something like an Olympic bid being official, or new ownership. But it has to be a bit of a re-set of some sort to bring hope back to the conversation.

Olympic announcement, be it yes we will pursue or no we won't, will be the next kicker. Really no need for the Flames to jump at anything before then.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

What concession(s) can the city make to entice the CSEC to return to the table?

Offer more money?
Nenshi publically recuse himself?

What CSEC demands do you think are the most important to them? Which are negotiation fodder?

I think there will be an Olympic bid and win, and there will be 3 levels of public funding, allowing the Flames to get most of what they are asking for.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteEbola

What concession(s) can the city make to entice the CSEC to return to the table?

Offer more money?
Nenshi publically recuse himself?

What CSEC demands do you think are the most important to them? Which are negotiation fodder?

I think there will be an Olympic bid and win, and there will be 3 levels of public funding, allowing the Flames to get most of what they are asking for.

Would they? With Federal and Provincial governments chipping in, I am not sure how the CSEC ends up with owning the arena and receiving all the profits off of it. I would almost think having the other levels of government would be too much oversight over this for the CSEC to get what was in their proposal.

[rage2]

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteEbola

What concession(s) can the city make to entice the CSEC to return to the table?

Bring back CalgaryNEXT.

Vic Park is not something that CSEC wants, so they're going to play as hardball as possible with their wants. Vic Park does not solve their Stamps problem, and does not really give them an opportunity for additional revenue potentials.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Would they? With Federal and Provincial governments chipping in, I am not sure how the CSEC ends up with owning the arena and receiving all the profits off of it. I would almost think having the other levels of government would be too much oversight over this for the CSEC to get what was in their proposal.

Yeah, you're right they are asking for a great deal of things aren't they.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

There is one more:
Some think we don't need an NHL team in Calgary and good riddance if they leave.

This latter group, potentially, is large enough to disinterest politicians from making a genuine effort to keep Flames in Calgary. Let's face it, the previous Council was overwhelmingly pro-business and pro-development. This new Council is, arguably, even more pro-business. Nobody, in good conscience, can accuse it of intentionally trying to drive Calgary Flames out.

However;
a) not all of the Council members care about NHL hockey that much to begin with; those who don't lack the emotional attachment and support to the notion of the team being a community asset;
b) most of them do want to be re-elected, so they need to gauge electorate's interest in paying something (anything) to keep the team here.

In response to Bunk's comment, the decision to step up and return to the negotiation table cannot be made until Council agrees on what they really want out of it, first. What Nenshi says publicly about it has very little significance. He is not the decision maker on the outcome of this negotiation, unless there is a tie vote in Council. Saddledome is a large aging asset, which would lose its anchor tenant if the team leaves. Unless they just blow it up and lose the only large event facility we have, its maintenance and upkeep expense could become entirely taxpayers' responsibility. That should be a very significant factor to those who are not seeing the community value of the team otherwise.

Negotiators use the term BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). The ownership group's BATNA is $700M in cash and no more hassles. City's BATNA is quite murky.

Is this true?

Because the last thing I would call their tax hikes on small business anything but good for business. At least that is the vibe i got from business owners who were really hoping for a change of the guard on council.

Maybe I missed something along the way but no where have i heard that the previous group was pro-business per se.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Would they? With Federal and Provincial governments chipping in, I am not sure how the CSEC ends up with owning the arena and receiving all the profits off of it. I would almost think having the other levels of government would be too much oversight over this for the CSEC to get what was in their proposal.

Aside from the fact they won't own the building and don't want to, getting the three levels of government to pay is exactly how they have the present deal for the Dome.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Is this true?

Because the last thing I would call their tax hikes on small business anything but good for business. At least that is the vibe i got from business owners who were really hoping for a change of the guard on council.

Maybe I missed something along the way but no where have i heard that the previous group was pro-business per se.

"Tax hikes? They must hate business!"

When political slogans replace critical thinking.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Is this true?

Because the last thing I would call their tax hikes on small business anything but good for business. At least that is the vibe i got from business owners who were really hoping for a change of the guard on council.

Maybe I missed something along the way but no where have i heard that the previous group was pro-business per se.

You might be missing something, because business tax rates have been going down each year since 2012.

See here:

Business assessment values are market-based and fluctuate with the economy. If someone owns a small house on 17th Ave, which is being used as a cafe, for example, the value of that business is combined with the value of the property, which in turn produces a combined assessed value respective of that. One may disagree with the concept of market-based property valuations for taxation purposes, but that is a totally different and hypothetical discussion, which has nothing to do with this thread or Council leaning.

The previous and current Councils have been very pro-business, which statement is supported by pretty much every business association in Calgary.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Aside from the fact they won't own the building and don't want to, getting the three levels of government to pay is exactly how they have the present deal for the Dome.

Yeah, but doesn't that defeat the purpose of what the CSEC is trying to build - this massive entertainment / sports empire? The Flames would just be ordinary tenants and receive nothing more than ticket sales and pay rent to the City/Prov/Fed.

Hopefully the higher levels of government would not build an arena that would be used for private profit. I don't mind this at all. As a resident of Calgary I think that would be the best deal. I am just surprised that the CSEC would find that agreeable after seeing their expectations.